Procedural Multilateralism and Multilateral Investment Court: Discussion in Light of Increased Institutionalism in Transatlantic Relations

  • Catharine Titi
Part of the Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation book series (SEELR, volume 10)


Recent decades have witnessed the growing malaise of multilateralism within international economic governance and an inclination for bilateralism and tailor-made solutions. And yet procedural multilateralism does exist in international investment law. The chapter assesses the Mauritius Convention and a similar initiative, the OECD’s Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS), in order to draw inspiration for the EU’s multilateral investment court. The emphasis is on recent developments, in light of the EU’s 2017 public consultation on a multilateral reform of investment dispute resolution. It argues that while the UNCITRAL and OECD examples of ‘retroactively’ reforming thousands of existing treaties offer useful guidance, the establishment of a multilateral investment court would require two instruments —a convention regulating the relationship between IIAs and the court and a stand-alone convention (the statute) on the multilateral investment court —and only the first of these instruments can draw on the UNCITRAL and OECD precedents.



The author would like to thank Marc Bungenberg for his comments.


  1. Gómez KF, Titi C (2016a) International investment law and ISDS: mapping contemporary Latin America. In: Gómez KF, Titi C (eds) The Latin American challenge to the current system of investor-state dispute settlement. J World Invest Trade, Special Issue 17(4):515–535Google Scholar
  2. Gómez KF, Titi C (2016b) El centro de solución de controversias en materia de inversiones de Unasur. Invest Treaty News 7(3)Google Scholar
  3. Kaufmann-Kohler G, Potestà M (2016) Can the Mauritius Convention serve as a model for the reform of investor-State arbitration in connection with the introduction of a permanent investment tribunal or an appeal mechanism? CIDS Research Paper, p 79.
  4. Magnaye J, Reinisch A (2016) Revisiting Res Judicata and Lis Pendens in Investor-State Arbitration. Law Pract Int Courts Tribunals 15, 2016Google Scholar
  5. OECD (2015) Developing a Multilateral Instrument to Modify Bilateral Tax Treaties, Action 15 - 2015 Final ReportGoogle Scholar
  6. Reinisch A (2016) Will the EU’s proposal concerning an investment court system for CETA and TTIP lead to enforceable awards?—The limits of modifying the ICSID Convention and the nature of investment arbitration. J Int Econ Law, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  7. Schill S (2015) Das TTIP-Gericht: Keimzelle oder Stolperstein für echte Multilateralisierung des internationalen Investitionsrechts? Verfassungsblog, 25 November 2015Google Scholar
  8. Titi C (2015a) International investment law and good governance. In: Bungenberg M, Griebel J, Hobe S, Reinisch A (eds) International investment law: a handbook. Beck/Hart/Nomos, pp 1768–1783Google Scholar
  9. Titi C (2015b) The European Commission’s approach to the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP): investment standards and international investment court. Transnl Dispute Manage 6:12Google Scholar
  10. Titi C (2016) The European Union’s proposal for an international investment court: significance, innovations and challenges ahead. Transnl Dispute Manage, advance publication on 25 May 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Catharine Titi
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)ParisFrance
  2. 2.CREDIMI, University of BurgundyDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations